The apologizer’s dilemma: Two-sided transgressions introduce concerns about relative blame

Existing research on interpersonal reconciliation often overlooks a critical reality: Most unresolved conflicts that people recall involve two-sided transgressions, where both parties share some blame. We propose that two-sidedness creates unique barriers to reconciliation due to a novel informational motive: Individuals seek to not only acknowledge “what” they are to blame for (absolute blame) but also establish a joint understanding about “how much” they are to blame (relative blame) in a way that comports with their own beliefs. Moreover, they expect pragmatic aspects of conversations—namely, number and order of apologies—to impact this shared understanding: Two apologies imply shared blame, whereas one does not; and the first apologizer looks more guilty than the second one. As a result, beliefs about relative blame shape preferences over apology exchanges (Studies 1 and 2) and contribute to coordination challenges in amends-making, which we highlight using a game theoretic framework. For example, two-sidedness makes apologizing first a risky choice. Therefore, a major barrier to reconciliation in real conflicts is fear that the other person will not acknowledge their part in the conflict (Study 3). In behavioral experiments with live interactions, we find that, holding constant what a person did wrong, perceiving the situation as two-sided (vs. one-sided) reduces the likelihood of initiating an apology (Study 4); however, the more blameworthy party is more willing (than the less blameworthy party) to take the risk, since they prefer to apologize first (Study 5). We discuss additional predictions and extensions.